The Stupidity Of Virtualization

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 23, 2009.

  1. Every virtual machine has to run a full copy of an OS, duplicating services
    and needlessly consuming resources. So how about “bare-metal
    virtualizationâ€, where each guest is running the thinnest of OS layers, just
    enough to intermediate service requests and responses with the host OS?

    <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/23/repetitive_os_bloat/>

    Except—isn’t this going full circle? Aren’t you just reinventing a single OS
    with memory protection for individual processes?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 23, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    thingy Guest

    On Nov 24, 12:23 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > Every virtual machine has to run a full copy of an OS, duplicating services
    > and needlessly consuming resources. So how about “bare-metal
    > virtualization”, where each guest is running the thinnest of OS layers, just
    > enough to intermediate service requests and responses with the host OS?
    >
    > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/23/repetitive_os_bloat/>
    >
    > Except—isn’t this going full circle? Aren’t you just reinventing a single OS
    > with memory protection for individual processes?


    LOL....

    If you didnt have virtualisation, you would have a full OS
    anyway....but its a q of advancing generations, ie improving
    technology

    Generation 1
    We used to buy 30~50 servers per year at $8~10k each, now we buy 2~3
    $20k servers per year and a SAN disk tray...that's over $500,000 v <
    $100,000....Per server we now spend < $1500...

    Generation 2 is now common ....we already thin provision the disk...so
    give the OS and data say 100g, it uses 20gig to start with, grows with
    time add disks in time....

    Generation 2a or 3....Common parts of the OS are not
    replicated....just delta files....40 machines can share a 10g common
    disk and then have delta files of various sizes.

    Generation 4 This will move into the OS and applications....so load
    one Windows/Linux OS and one firefox into memory and say 40 machines
    share the common code.

    We can even look at thin provisioning via a thin client...where
    firefox isnt even in the OS image,its external...

    Whats stopping such great tech at the moment is the cost, Vmware's
    view cost is obscene...the saving we'd make on say a wyse terminal is
    lost in VMware's licence fees. Ditto HP's thin OS idea...I bet...its
    simply priced so the vendor takes the lion's share of the savings....

    Interesting things to look at is Red Hat's virtual desktop tech,
    considerably cheaper, not as "powerful" as VMare but a fraction of the
    cost, ie good enough and cheap aka Windows 1.0 ~ win98 territory....so
    this could be a game changer...in time this will filter through to
    totally free....OSS.

    regards
    thingy, Nov 26, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    thingy wrote:
    > On Nov 24, 12:23 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >> Every virtual machine has to run a full copy of an OS, duplicating
    >> services and needlessly consuming resources. So how about
    >> “bare-metal virtualization”, where each guest is running the
    >> thinnest of OS layers, just enough to intermediate service requests
    >> and responses with the host OS?
    >>
    >> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/23/repetitive_os_bloat/>
    >>
    >> Except—isn’t this going full circle? Aren’t you just reinventing a
    >> single OS with memory protection for individual processes?

    >
    > LOL....
    >
    > If you didnt have virtualisation, you would have a full OS
    > anyway....but its a q of advancing generations, ie improving
    > technology
    >
    > Generation 1 We used to buy 30~50 servers per year at $8~10k each,
    > now we buy 2~3 $20k servers per year and a SAN disk tray...that's
    > over $500,000 v < $100,000....Per server we now spend < $1500...
    >
    > Generation 2 is now common ....we already thin provision the
    > disk...so give the OS and data say 100g, it uses 20gig to start with,
    > grows with time add disks in time....
    >
    > Generation 2a or 3....Common parts of the OS are not
    > replicated....just delta files....40 machines can share a 10g common
    > disk and then have delta files of various sizes.
    >

    I don't think that that is going to be that easy, otherwise it would
    have been done already in the thin client scenarios.
    >
    > Generation 4 This will move into the OS and applications....so load
    > one Windows/Linux OS and one firefox into memory and say 40 machines
    > share the common code.
    >

    There need be only one copy for the whole organisation, pulled down over
    the network. However we will still be paying per instance with an
    instance defined by Microsoft as a machine that *might* at some time
    load the OS or use the OS through a thin client!
    >
    > We can even look at thin provisioning via a thin client...where
    > firefox isn't even in the OS image,its external...
    >

    That's fine but when an app such as Firefox is loaded a certain amount
    of customisation goes on. As time passes the user tweaks Firefox to suit
    themselves. This has to be stored somewhere and currently locally make
    sense though it may not always be that way. It might be quicker to put
    firefox in a chip in the monitor and just download the customisations,
    but if you add up all the customisations for all the apps a user might
    use in a day, the customisations (presumably loaded over the network)
    might get to be quite big. People already have user profiles measured in
    GB in some cases! Besides the chip in the monitor would have to be
    pretty large and customisable. I'm not sure if this scenario is feasible
    though it is plausible.
    >
    > Whats stopping such great tech at the moment is the cost, Vmware's
    > view cost is obscene...the saving we'd make on say a wyse terminal is
    > lost in VMware's licence fees. Ditto HP's thin OS idea...I bet...its
    > simply priced so the vendor takes the lion's share of the
    > savings....
    >
    > Interesting things to look at is Red Hat's virtual desktop tech,
    > considerably cheaper, not as "powerful" as VMare but a fraction of
    > the cost, ie good enough and cheap aka Windows 1.0 ~ win98
    > territory....so this could be a game changer...in time this will
    > filter through to totally free....OSS.
    >

    Except that they can't make up their minds. First it was Xen now it's
    KVM. What will it be next week? And what will we have to do to convert?
    Sigh!

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
    the same old personalities show through.
    Enkidu, Nov 26, 2009
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    bAZZ Guest

    In article <4b0ee397$>,
    says...
    >


    >""GB in some cases! Besides the chip in the monitor would have to be
    >pretty large and customisable. I'm not sure if this scenario is
    >feasible though it is plausible.""


    Hmmm, may not be that far off Cliff. I read earlier this week about a
    new TV from Sony, I think, that had not only a very smart chip in it but
    a large GB harddrive. Can't remember where I read it but was 52" and
    used the additions to enable user to record up to 8 simultaneous HiDef
    channels at once and record up to 90 0dd hours. Cost was about 15000 us
    I think but economies of scale may well slash it if it takes off.

    Obviously a monitor would be much cheaper and it wouldn't be too hard to
    incorp a small chip/hdd (solid state?)and peripherals into monitor
    making them in essence your thin client.

    As an aside NZPC world have free copy VMware on dvd this month so am
    going to install and give the ubuntu image that came with it a whirl
    over the weekend. Have also downloaded the google chrome OS image to
    have a play with.

    Imagine that on monitor chip with free OSS stuff would eally lower costs
    do you think for small/medium business ?

    bAZZ
    bAZZ, Nov 26, 2009
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    On Nov 24, 12:23 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    >
    > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/23/repetitive_os_bloat/>
    >
    > Except—isn’t this going full circle? Aren’t you just reinventing a single OS
    > with memory protection for individual processes?


    Assuming the operating system or systems are split into 'static' code
    plus 'variables' areas, it would seem feasible that one copy of the OS
    or OS's can be stored in an area read-only accessible by all virtual
    machines. There is no fundamental reason why applications such as
    Apache cannot be similarly stored.

    Rearrangement of GNU/Linux to facilitate this would seem quite
    possible, but any re-arrangement of Windows may require Microsoft's
    cooperation, but then AFAIK Microsoft does not like virtual instances
    of Windows running on a physival machine running something other than
    Windows.
    peterwn, Nov 27, 2009
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    Allistar wrote:
    >
    > Sounds like a compelling reason to use a freer alternative.
    >

    I'd not dispute that.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
    the same old personalities show through.
    Enkidu, Nov 27, 2009
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    bAZZ wrote:
    >
    > As an aside NZPC world have free copy VMware on dvd this month...
    >

    Which VMWare? If it is VMWare Server 2.0 that was a major disappointment
    as compared to VMWare Server 1.0. If it is VMWare Player you can't make
    new VMs - you have to load an appliance.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
    the same old personalities show through.
    Enkidu, Nov 27, 2009
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    thingy Guest

    On Nov 27, 9:22 am, Enkidu <> wrote:
    > thingy wrote:
    > > On Nov 24, 12:23 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > >> Every virtual machine has to run a full copy of an OS, duplicating
    > >> services and needlessly consuming resources. So how about
    > >> “bare-metal virtualization”, where each guest is running the
    > >> thinnest of OS layers, just enough to intermediate service requests
    > >> and responses with the host OS?

    >
    > >> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/23/repetitive_os_bloat/>

    >
    > >> Except—isn’t this going full circle? Aren’t you just reinventing a
    > >> single OS with memory protection for individual processes?

    >
    > > LOL....

    >
    > > If you didnt have virtualisation, you would have a full OS
    > > anyway....but its a q of advancing generations, ie improving
    > > technology

    >
    > > Generation 1 We used to buy 30~50 servers per year at $8~10k each,
    > > now we buy 2~3 $20k servers per year and a SAN disk tray...that's
    > > over $500,000 v < $100,000....Per server we now spend < $1500...

    >
    > > Generation 2 is now common ....we already thin provision the
    > > disk...so give the OS and data say 100g, it uses 20gig to start with,
    > > grows with time add disks in time....

    >
    > > Generation 2a or 3....Common parts of the OS are not
    > > replicated....just delta files....40 machines can share a 10g common
    > > disk and then have delta files of various sizes.

    >
    > I don't think that that is going to be that easy, otherwise it would
    > have been done already in the thin client scenarios.
    >
    > > Generation 4 This will move into the OS and applications....so load
    > > one Windows/Linux OS and one firefox into memory and say 40 machines
    > > share the common code.

    >
    > There need be only one copy for the whole organisation, pulled down over
    > the network. However we will still be paying per instance with an
    > instance defined by Microsoft as a machine that *might* at some time
    > load the OS or use the OS through a thin client!
    >
    > > We can even look at thin provisioning via a thin client...where
    > > firefox isn't even in the OS image,its external...

    >
    > That's fine but when an app such as Firefox is loaded a certain amount
    > of customisation goes on. As time passes the user tweaks Firefox to suit
    > themselves. This has to be stored somewhere and currently locally make
    > sense though it may not always be that way.


    Nope...better to centralise...

    It might be quicker to put
    > firefox in a chip in the monitor and just download the customisations,


    Take a look on you tube with a wyse terminal and 4 desktops and
    VMware's view.

    > but if you add up all the customisations for all the apps a user might
    > use in a day, the customisations (presumably loaded over the network)
    > might get to be quite big. People already have user profiles measured in
    > GB in some cases! Besides the chip in the monitor would have to be
    > pretty large and customisable. I'm not sure if this scenario is feasible
    > though it is plausible.
    >  >> Whats stopping such great tech at the moment is the cost, Vmware's
    > > view cost is obscene...the saving we'd make on say a wyse terminal is
    > >  lost in VMware's licence fees. Ditto HP's thin OS idea...I bet...its
    > >  simply priced so the vendor takes the lion's share of the
    > > savings....

    >
    > > Interesting things to look at is Red Hat's virtual desktop tech,
    > > considerably cheaper, not as "powerful" as VMare but a fraction of
    > > the cost, ie good enough and cheap aka Windows 1.0 ~ win98
    > > territory....so this could be a game changer...in time this will
    > > filter through to totally free....OSS.

    >
    > Except that they can't make up their minds. First it was Xen now it's
    > KVM. What will it be next week? And what will we have to do to convert?
    > Sigh!
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Cliff


    I think they are using both....

    Going on a course in 2 weeks to look at it.

    regards
    thingy, Nov 27, 2009
    #8
  9. In message <b2cc8893-9b9c-4384-
    >, thingy wrote:

    > We used to buy 30~50 servers per year at $8~10k each, now we buy 2~3
    > $20k servers per year and a SAN disk tray...that's over $500,000 v <
    > $100,000....Per server we now spend < $1500...


    But then why do you need so many servers anyway? This seems to be a
    characteristic of the Windows mentality, where if you run multiple
    (proprietary) apps on one server, then if something goes wrong, the vendors
    will all point the finger at each other. That’s why you end up separating
    the apps onto different boxes.

    Whereas Linux servers regularly run multiple Free Software apps providing
    completely different services at the same time, and everybody knows how to
    coexist.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 27, 2009
    #9
  10. In message
    <>, peterwn
    wrote:

    > On Nov 24, 12:23 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    >>
    >> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/23/repetitive_os_bloat/>
    >>
    >> Except—isn’t this going full circle? Aren’t you just reinventing a single
    >> OS with memory protection for individual processes?

    >
    > Assuming the operating system or systems are split into 'static' code
    > plus 'variables' areas, it would seem feasible that one copy of the OS
    > or OS's can be stored in an area read-only accessible by all virtual
    > machines.


    You mean, the way operating systems already divide their ministrations among
    currently-running processes?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 27, 2009
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    thingy wrote:
    > On Nov 27, 9:22 am, Enkidu <> wrote:
    >> thingy wrote:
    >>> On Nov 24, 12:23 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    >>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >>>> Every virtual machine has to run a full copy of an OS,
    >>>> duplicating services and needlessly consuming resources. So how
    >>>> about “bare-metal virtualization”, where each guest is running
    >>>> the thinnest of OS layers, just enough to intermediate service
    >>>> requests and responses with the host OS?
    >>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/23/repetitive_os_bloat/>
    >>>> Except—isn’t this going full circle? Aren’t you just
    >>>> reinventing a single OS with memory protection for individual
    >>>> processes?
    >>> LOL.... If you didnt have virtualisation, you would have a full
    >>> OS anyway....but its a q of advancing generations, ie improving
    >>> technology Generation 1 We used to buy 30~50 servers per year at
    >>> $8~10k each, now we buy 2~3 $20k servers per year and a SAN disk
    >>> tray...that's over $500,000 v < $100,000....Per server we now
    >>> spend < $1500... Generation 2 is now common ....we already thin
    >>> provision the disk...so give the OS and data say 100g, it uses
    >>> 20gig to start with, grows with time add disks in time....
    >>> Generation 2a or 3....Common parts of the OS are not
    >>> replicated....just delta files....40 machines can share a 10g
    >>> common disk and then have delta files of various sizes.

    >> I don't think that that is going to be that easy, otherwise it
    >> would have been done already in the thin client scenarios.
    >>
    >>> Generation 4 This will move into the OS and applications....so
    >>> load one Windows/Linux OS and one firefox into memory and say 40
    >>> machines share the common code.

    >> There need be only one copy for the whole organisation, pulled down
    >> over the network. However we will still be paying per instance with
    >> an instance defined by Microsoft as a machine that *might* at some
    >> time load the OS or use the OS through a thin client!
    >>
    >>> We can even look at thin provisioning via a thin client...where
    >>> firefox isn't even in the OS image,its external...

    >> That's fine but when an app such as Firefox is loaded a certain
    >> amount of customisation goes on. As time passes the user tweaks
    >> Firefox to suit themselves. This has to be stored somewhere and
    >> currently locally make sense though it may not always be that way.

    >
    > Nope...better to centralise...
    >

    With the current configuration of Windows it downloads all the user
    profile on login, and this can be a GB or more for some people! Dragging
    that over the network is not trivial, and I can't see it decreasing. If
    you have a thin client, this alleviates the problem, but it doesn't make
    it go away, and using Terminal Services or Citrix adds complexity and
    extra costs. It effectively doubles your CAL requirements. Plus it
    increases your hardware requirements at the server end (while
    effectively reducing them at the client end of course) by at least 50%.

    What I'm saying is that it won't make sense for some people, while it
    will for others. EG it would not work for the sales force (who take
    their laptops to clients) but it would for, say, accounts.
    >
    > It might be quicker to put
    >> firefox in a chip in the monitor and just download the
    >> customisations,

    >
    > Take a look on you tube with a wyse terminal and 4 desktops and
    > VMware's view.
    >
    >> but if you add up all the customisations for all the apps a user
    >> might use in a day, the customisations (presumably loaded over the
    >> network) might get to be quite big. People already have user
    >> profiles measured in GB in some cases! Besides the chip in the
    >> monitor would have to be pretty large and customisable. I'm not
    >> sure if this scenario is feasible though it is plausible.
    >>>> Whats stopping such great tech at the moment is the cost,
    >>>> Vmware's
    >>> view cost is obscene...the saving we'd make on say a wyse
    >>> terminal is lost in VMware's licence fees. Ditto HP's thin OS
    >>> idea...I bet...its simply priced so the vendor takes the lion's
    >>> share of the savings.... Interesting things to look at is Red
    >>> Hat's virtual desktop tech, considerably cheaper, not as
    >>> "powerful" as VMare but a fraction of the cost, ie good enough
    >>> and cheap aka Windows 1.0 ~ win98 territory....so this could be a
    >>> game changer...in time this will filter through to totally
    >>> free....OSS.

    >>
    >> Except that they can't make up their minds. First it was Xen now
    >> it's KVM. What will it be next week? And what will we have to do to
    >> convert? Sigh!

    >
    > I think they are using both....
    >
    > Going on a course in 2 weeks to look at it.
    >

    Is that a virtualisation course?

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
    the same old personalities show through.
    Enkidu, Nov 28, 2009
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message <b2cc8893-9b9c-4384-
    > >, thingy wrote:
    >
    >> We used to buy 30~50 servers per year at $8~10k each, now we buy
    >> 2~3 $20k servers per year and a SAN disk tray...that's over
    >> $500,000 v < $100,000....Per server we now spend < $1500...

    >
    > But then why do you need so many servers anyway? This seems to be a
    > characteristic of the Windows mentality, where if you run multiple
    > (proprietary) apps on one server, then if something goes wrong, the
    > vendors will all point the finger at each other. That’s why you end
    > up separating the apps onto different boxes.
    >
    > Whereas Linux servers regularly run multiple Free Software apps
    > providing completely different services at the same time, and
    > everybody knows how to coexist.
    >

    That is bollux Lawrence. The operating characteristics of a Database
    server are not the same as the operating characteristics of an
    application server which are not the same as the operating
    characteristics of a web server, and so on and so on. If you were to
    look at a large user of Linux you would find that they separate out the
    apps, just like you say they don't.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
    the same old personalities show through.
    Enkidu, Nov 28, 2009
    #12
  13. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    On Nov 28, 11:00 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In message
    > <>, peterwn
    > wrote:
    >
    > > On Nov 24, 12:23 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-

    >
    > >> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/23/repetitive_os_bloat/>

    >
    > >> Except—isn’t this going full circle? Aren’t you just reinventing a single
    > >> OS with memory protection for individual processes?

    >
    > > Assuming the operating system or systems are split into 'static' code
    > > plus 'variables' areas, it would seem feasible that one copy of the OS
    > > or OS's can be stored in an area read-only accessible by all virtual
    > > machines.

    >
    > You mean, the way operating systems already divide their ministrations among
    > currently-running processes?


    Yes, any 'top level' operating system would need to do this with
    respect to operating systems on virtual machines. With respect to
    this is would not really matter if each virtual operating system had
    exclusive control over its own memory or if they each mapped a common
    area of read only memory. In this case the read only memory would
    needed to be 'loaded' then locked read only before any virtual
    machines were started.
    peterwn, Nov 29, 2009
    #13
  14. In message <>, peterwn wrote:

    > On Nov 28, 11:00 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
    >
    >> In message
    >> <>,
    >> peterwn wrote:
    >>
    >> > On Nov 24, 12:23 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-

    >>
    >> >> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/23/repetitive_os_bloat/>

    >>
    >> >> Except—isn’t this going full circle? Aren’t you just reinventing a
    >> >> single OS with memory protection for individual processes?

    >>
    >> > Assuming the operating system or systems are split into 'static' code
    >> > plus 'variables' areas, it would seem feasible that one copy of the OS
    >> > or OS's can be stored in an area read-only accessible by all virtual
    >> > machines.

    >>
    >> You mean, the way operating systems already divide their ministrations
    >> among currently-running processes?

    >
    > Yes, any 'top level' operating system would need to do this with
    > respect to operating systems on virtual machines.


    Why bother with the virtualization, then?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 30, 2009
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    bAZZ Guest

    In article <4b0f7569$>,
    says...
    >
    > bAZZ wrote:
    > >
    > > As an aside NZPC world have free copy VMware on dvd this month...
    > >

    > Which VMWare? If it is VMWare Server 2.0 that was a major disappointment
    > as compared to VMWare Server 1.0. If it is VMWare Player you can't make
    > new VMs - you have to load an appliance.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Cliff


    Just the player Cliff. Worked OK with the ubuntu image that was included
    but wouldn't play well with the chrome image. Had to download the Sun
    virtual box to do so.

    Yep, the player is certainly limited but for the price one can't
    complain :)

    bAZZ
    bAZZ, Dec 7, 2009
    #15
  16. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    bAZZ wrote:
    > In article <4b0f7569$>,
    > says...
    >> bAZZ wrote:
    >>> As an aside NZPC world have free copy VMware on dvd this month...
    >>>

    >> Which VMWare? If it is VMWare Server 2.0 that was a major disappointment
    >> as compared to VMWare Server 1.0. If it is VMWare Player you can't make
    >> new VMs - you have to load an appliance.

    >
    > Just the player Cliff. Worked OK with the ubuntu image that was included
    > but wouldn't play well with the chrome image. Had to download the Sun
    > virtual box to do so.
    >
    > Yep, the player is certainly limited but for the price one can't
    > complain :)
    >

    VMWare server is free too. Have you got VirtualBox to work with a
    Windows VMWare image?

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
    the same old personalities show through.
    Enkidu, Dec 7, 2009
    #16
  17. Here’s an example of a solution to a real problem:
    <http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1565809/drbd-accepted-linux-kernel>.

    You’d think virtualization would offer something similar, but it doesn’t.
    Yes, you can migrate virtual machines from one physical host to another, but
    that doesn’t do anything to improve reliability: you can’t maintain a “hot
    spare†of a live VM, ready to take over the moment the original fails. Why
    don’t hypervisors offer such a facility? Yet DRBD can do it without
    virtualization.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 15, 2009
    #17
  18. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    AD. Guest

    On Dec 15, 7:33 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > Here’s an example of a solution to a real problem:
    > <http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1565809/drbd-accepted-linux-...>.
    >
    > You’d think virtualization would offer something similar, but it doesn’t.
    > Yes, you can migrate virtual machines from one physical host to another, but
    > that doesn’t do anything to improve reliability: you can’t maintain a “hot
    > spare” of a live VM, ready to take over the moment the original fails.


    Why not?

    > Why don’t hypervisors offer such a facility? Yet DRBD can do it without
    > virtualization.


    DRBD by itself doesn't give you that at all. It only handles the
    storage level of the HA stack. You still need other pieces for the
    network and application failover etc.

    And you can build hot spare VMs that operate on DRBD backed storage
    too. And they can even migrate the contents of the VMs RAM across
    before any TCP sessions timeout. The VMs OS doesn't even know it
    switched physical hardware.

    It must be very satisfying being so much wiser than the rest of the
    world eh? Silly people - don't they know that virtualisation doesn't
    offer anything?

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Dec 15, 2009
    #18
  19. In message <>, AD. wrote:

    > On Dec 15, 7:33 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >
    >> Here’s an example of a solution to a real problem:
    >> <http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1565809/drbd-accepted-linux-kernel>.
    >>
    >> Why don’t hypervisors offer such a facility? Yet DRBD can do it without
    >> virtualization.

    >
    > DRBD by itself doesn't give you that at all. It only handles the
    > storage level of the HA stack. You still need other pieces for the
    > network and application failover etc.


    OS-level and application-level pieces, Virtualization is no help with this
    at all.

    > And you can build hot spare VMs that operate on DRBD backed storage
    > too.


    But virtualization doesn’t add anything to the table.

    > And they can even migrate the contents of the VMs RAM across
    > before any TCP sessions timeout.


    But you have to do that before the VM crashes—once it crashes, all its
    context is lost. DRBD helps you recover *after* you’ve crashed.

    > It must be very satisfying being so much wiser than the rest of the
    > world eh? Silly people - don't they know that virtualisation doesn't
    > offer anything?


    Love that passive-aggressive mentality...
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 16, 2009
    #19
  20. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    AD. Guest

    On Dec 16, 1:04 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > But you have to do that before the VM crashes—once it crashes, all its
    > context is lost.


    http://dsg.cs.ubc.ca/remus/

    I'm sure there are other examples.

    > DRBD helps you recover *after* you’ve crashed.


    But weren't you originally claiming that DRBD was for "improving
    reliability" in ways that virtualisation couldn't? Now it is for
    helping you recover from a crash?

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Dec 16, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Knowing About

    Opsware Offers Virtualization View

    Knowing About, Sep 18, 2006, in forum: VOIP
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    447
    Knowing About
    Sep 18, 2006
  2. 7
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    521
    arachnid
    Nov 3, 2006
  3. Mark Gillespie

    x64 and Vanderpool virtualization.

    Mark Gillespie, Jul 18, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    517
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Virtualization

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 12, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    352
    thingy
    Oct 12, 2006
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Why Virtualization?

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 27, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    759
Loading...

Share This Page